Ex Parte Chepurny et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 10, 2014

11791916 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MARK CHEPURNY and MIKEL SHANI ____________ Appeal 2012-008860 Application 11/791,916 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1–19.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. According to the Specification, the “invention relates to the field of medical care for patients that are bedridden or otherwise have difficulty moving on their own . . . [, and] [i]n particular . . . relates to the field of patient-carrying devices.” 1 Our decision references Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed May 30, 2007), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed November 9, 2011), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 14, 2012), as well as the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed March 12, 2012). Appeal 2012-008860 Application 11/791,916 2 Spec. 1, ll. 5–7. Claim 1, which we reproduce below as representative of the claims on appeal, is the only independent claim. 1. A carabiner for bearing a load and for anchoring the load to an object, the carabiner comprising: a body having an internal space, the body having an opening for admitting the object to the internal space and for withdrawing the object from the internal space, the body being sized, shaped and positioned to bear the load and to anchor to an object; a closure movably coupled to the body, the closure being movable to an open position, and to a closed position in which the opening is closed by the closure such that the body and the closure define a closed shape; an actuator, coupled to the closure and operatively connected to the body, the actuator being configured to cause the closure to move to the closed position in response to loading of the carabiner, and to cause the closure to move from the closed position to the open position in response to unloading of the carabiner. REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects claims 1–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by each of Katsma (US 5,416,955, iss. May 23, 1995) (“Katsma ’955”) and Katsma (US 5,210,914, iss. May 18, 1993) (“Katsma ’914”). ANALYSIS Independent claim 1, from which each of claims 2–19 depends, requires: an actuator, coupled to the closure and operatively connected to the body, the actuator being configured to cause the closure to move to the closed position in response to loading of the carabiner, and to cause the closure to move from the closed position to the open position in response to unloading of the carabiner. Appeal 2012-008860 Application 11/791,916 3 Appeal Br. 13, Clms. App. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with Appellants that neither Katsma ’955 nor Katsma ’914 teaches the claimed carabiner actuator that is configured to cause a closure to move from a closed position to an open position in response to unloading of the carabiner, and thus we do not sustain either rejection of the claims. See Appeal Br. 811. In the rejection based on Katsma ’955, the Examiner states: Katsma [’955] . . . discloses . . . an actuator including a biased spring (see Figs. 2, 3, 6, 7, 10) and a trigger (17), coupled to the closure and operatively connected to the body, the actuator being configured to cause the closure to move to the closed position in response to loading of the carabiner, and to cause the closure to move from the closed position to the open position in response to unloading of the carabiner. Answer 4–5. The Examiner further explains the rejection, stating: As shown in Fig. 2 of Katsma [’955] . . . a user simply pulls the trigger (17) (as shown . . . [by] arrow (24) to close the carabiner or . . . [to load] the carabiner. In order to open the gate (8) or closure, a user has to release the trigger (17) (the opposite direction of arrow 24) . . . . Then, [g]ate (8) is pushed open by the user against the force of biasing spring (12). [“]As gate (8) crosses over the approximately three- quarters-open position, groove (16) will cross over the center-line between gate pivot (9) and biasing spring (12), and the gate will be forced to the open position by biasing spring (12)[”] (col. 5, lines 56–61). . . . . Therefore, a biasing spring (12) or an actuator is capable of the function limitation of . . . causing the closure (8) to move from the closed position (Figs. 5 and 6) to the opening position (Fig. 2) in response to releasing the trigger (17) or unloading the carabiner[,] and being pushed open [to the] at least three-quarters-open position Appeal 2012-008860 Application 11/791,916 4 so that the . . . closure (8) will be forced to the open position by biasing spring (12) . . . (see col. 5, lines 60–61). Answer 8–9 (reformatted, and original emphasis omitted). In response, Appellants point out that: [I]ndependent claim 1 recites that the actuator is configured to cause the closure to move from the closed position to the open position in response to unloading, not from a partially open position to a fully open position. The feature of the ’955 Katsma patent where the biasing spring (12) forces the gate from a three- quarters-open position to a fully open position fails to teach or suggest an actuator configured to cause the closure to move from the closed position to the open position in response to unloading as recited in claim 1. Appellants respectfully submit that the three-quarters- open position of the ’955 Katsma patent cannot be construed as a closed position. Reply Br. 3(original emphasis omitted); see also Appeal Br. 9–10. We agree with Appellants. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection because Katsma ’955 does not teach “an actuator . . . configured . . . to cause the closure to move from the closed position to the open position in response to unloading of the carabiner” as required by each of claims 1–19. Thus, we reverse the anticipation rejection based on Katsma ’955. The Examiner’s rejection based on Katsma ’914 is substantially the same as the rejection based on Katsma ’955. See Answer 5, 11. Appellants’ arguments against the rejection are substantially the same as those set forth above against Katsma ’955. See Appeal Br. 11, Reply Br. 4. Thus, we reverse the anticipation rejection based on Katsma ’914 for reasons similar to those discussed above with respect to Katsma ’955. Appeal 2012-008860 Application 11/791,916 5 DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) are REVERSED. REVERSED llw